ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
KRBFC
Posts: 18017
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KRBFC » Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:37 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:31 pm
I have a suspicion that if someone emptied your bank account and took out a mortgage on your behalf, you wouldn't be quite so appreciative.
Why are you so insistent on arguing with incorrect figures?

arise_sir_charge
Posts: 3233
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:36 am
Been Liked: 1768 times
Has Liked: 41 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by arise_sir_charge » Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:46 pm

aggi wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:34 am
Neither side has provided evidence (and what evidence is in the public domain supports the Matt Slater story) but you only seem willing to give the benefit of the doubt to one side.

I agree that a lot seem to struggle with a middle ground but you seem to be as guilty of that yourself.
If you read my posts I don’t think I could be more in the middle if I tried.

NewClaret
Posts: 13222
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 3037 times
Has Liked: 3759 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by NewClaret » Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:49 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:50 am
You can sign the day after the year end in theory, though in practice you would never get an auditor to sign his bit. But the accounts can be signed as soon as they are ready. But the accounts do need to refer to anything major that has happened between year end date and signature date.

The filing date is independent of the date of signature. The filing date is 9 months after year end. It doesn't matter if the factory has blown up and the boss's wife has run off with the insurance money, those accounts won't alter for anything that happens after the date of signature, even if you have sat on them for 6 months.
Got you. So basically so long as accounts were signed prior to 31st Dec and they were waiting to file them in March, we won’t know any more until March 22?

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:31 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:37 pm
Why are you so insistent on arguing with incorrect figures?
No figures mentioned there. The figures are uncertain. What is virtually certain is that Burnley had a big balance and now we haven't, and what is absolutely certain is that Burnley didn't have a loan creditor and didn't have to pay any interest, and now we do.

It is also certain that this new loan and this interest payment is of absolutely zero benefit to Burnley FC. Burnley FC is paying for this loan, plus interest, because ALK capital cannot pay its debts.

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:32 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:49 pm
Got you. So basically so long as accounts were signed prior to 31st Dec and they were waiting to file them in March, we won’t know any more until March 22?
Pretty much. Unless they choose to tell us earlier, which they probably won't.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:31 pm
I have a suspicion that if someone emptied your bank account and took out a mortgage on your behalf, you wouldn't be quite so appreciative.
Hmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?

It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.

I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.

But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.

It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.

That's how it should be.

Exciting times.

UTC

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:34 pm
Southampton posted their results last night and announced it as a post balance sheet event

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20891&start=6059
Thanks, CP. A lot of interesting stuff in Soton's financials. It's interesting that Soton retained their 3-Jun year end and so 6 of their games in the 2019/20 season aren't included in the accounts for that year. However, they provide a lot of information reconciling the impact of the covid-19 lockdown and the delayed completion of the 2019/20 season. If I was an "equity analyst" (I'm not) I'd be busy preparing forecasts on the financial positions of the other Premier League clubs based on Soton's figures - and, of course, all the other club specific info. Interesting, also, to see the cashflow value of the VAT deferral scheme for Soton. Then, do we know who the player is that Soton wrote off £10m against as an impaired charge?

One thing, Soton report £78m term loan at 9.14%. They don't name MSD as the provider of the loan. It also appears that this was not a "post balance sheet event" - the loan is already included in the y/end figures at 30-Jun-2020. Or, is there something I've missed in my quick read of Soton's accounts?

Exciting times.

UTC

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:32 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:25 pm
Thanks, CP. A lot of interesting stuff in Soton's financials. It's interesting that Soton retained their 3-Jun year end and so 6 of their games in the 2019/20 season aren't included in the accounts for that year. However, they provide a lot of information reconciling the impact of the covid-19 lockdown and the delayed completion of the 2019/20 season. If I was an "equity analyst" (I'm not) I'd be busy preparing forecasts on the financial positions of the other Premier League clubs based on Soton's figures - and, of course, all the other club specific info. Interesting, also, to see the cashflow value of the VAT deferral scheme for Soton. Then, do we know who the player is that Soton wrote off £10m against as an impaired charge?

One thing, Soton report £78m term loan at 9.14%. They don't name MSD as the provider of the loan. It also appears that this was not a "post balance sheet event" - the loan is already included in the y/end figures at 30-Jun-2020. Or, is there something I've missed in my quick read of Soton's accounts?

Exciting times.

UTC
Charge was registered in July at companies house - I posted it at the time on the MMT thread

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:47 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:32 pm
Charge was registered in July at companies house - I posted it at the time on the MMT thread

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Thanks, CP. Debenture and Supplemental Security Deed dated 29th June and 30th June, respectively. MSD UK Holdings Limited, "as the security trustee for itself and the other Secured Parties (the "Security Agent").

Exciting times.

UTC

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:13 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 4:32 pm
Charge was registered in July at companies house - I posted it at the time on the MMT thread

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history
Hi CP, you may already be aware of this Chronicle article from 3-Jul-2020. I guess there's a good chance it is already posted on the MMT thread.

Of course, the report has a lot of comments that may be interesting with respect to ALK's use of funds from MSD.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... y-18537244

MSD's new UK holding company make investment in Southampton as Sunderland hopes dwindle
MSD's new UK holding company loaned an unknown amount to Southampton FC, just under a year since a similar deal at Sunderland

By Craig Johns.

(PW note: MSD UK Holdings was registered on 29-Jun-2020)

MSD's new UK holding company have invested an unknown amount into Premier League club Southampton FC, just under a year since they made a similar loan payment to Sunderland's holding company Madrox.

While Sunderland's loan came from the private group set up by members of MSD Partners in the form of new company FPP Sunderland, and was made to holding company Madrox, it was secured against the football club and its assets such as the stadium and the academy.

The loan made to Southampton comes from MSD's new UK Holding Limited company, which was registered with Companies House in Cardiff at the end of June. No amount is given on the charge documents for Southampton FC, but it does reveal that the loan is secured against the club and its stadium and other intellectual properties such as trademarks owned by the club.

The news will come as a blow to Sunderland fans who had hoped that the MSD trio would swoop in and takeover at Sunderland as fan pressure grows on current owner Stewart Donald.

Initially, John Phelan, Glenn Furhman and Rob Platek had been in negotiations to invest in shares in Sunderland in the form of a potential takeover, but for a reason never disclosed, they ultimately decided to just make a loan to the club.

When asked about their intentions at Sunderland the trio refused to comment, and were then linked to a similar loan agreement at Derby County which has so far yet to materialise.

At the time, Donald suggested that the Americans were keen to invest in an English club and the loan was their way of testing the water to see how well a potential investment would be used.

There are some differences in the loan to Sunderland and Southampton - the main one being where it comes from. While Sunderland's loan came independent of MSD from three investors who were also directors at MSD, Southampton's loan comes from MSD itself.

There is a lot of confusion around Michael Dell, which remains after similar confusion as to his involvement at Sunderland.

Reports in Southampton link Dell to the loan, but it's important to note that Dell is not named as a director of the new MSD UK Holdings company, and the address is given as MSD Partners, not MSD Capital.

That caused a lot of confusion during the time at Sunderland. MSD Capital is the sister company of MSD Partners. Capital manage the assets of Michael Dell and the Dell family, whereas Partners are private investors.

Dell was described as 'a passive, minority investor' in the negotiations with Sunderland, with sources close to the American trio keen to stress to the Chronicle that Dell was not directly involved, but as a close business associate, would support the trio should he be needed.

The latest move raises more questions about MSD's business intentions in English football. Although they've never stated their intentions, they seem now to be more interested in loans to clubs, rather than acquiring shares. It's because of this that there is no conflict of interest with their dealings with Sunderland and now Southampton.

What it does, is increase the unlikelihood that MSD have any interest of investing further in Sunderland AFC, however.

One thing that had been suggested of their intentions was looking for the right club to invest further in, and the fact they've since explored Derby, and now taken the plunge at Southampton, is the clearest indication that their interest in Sunderland is over - albeit while acknowledging they would become default owners of the football club were Madrox to default on the repayment of the loan made late last year.

No details about the terms of the loan and the repayment cut-off point were ever given, but Donald always maintained he would not default on the repayment.

Prior to their interest in Sunderland they had held discussions with a number of other English clubs, including Newcastle United, Chelsea and Watford.

MSD's new UK branch has three directors named in companies house documents. The only one of the trio involved at Sunderland is Robert Platek, although a second - Marcello Liguori - signed the charge documents in the deal with Madrox last year.

In the time since the loan to Sunderland, Furhman - who had been named as the one most keen on the Wearside club - has left his position at MSD Partners to set up his own investment firm. John Phelan remains managing director at both MSD Capital and Partners, but is not named in documents for the new UK branch.

********************

Some fantastic use of the English language in this article: "increase the unlikelihood.....". I'd feel that "decrease the likelihood..." would read a little easier.

A whole series of clubs mentioned: Sunderland, Derby, Southampton, Newcastle United, Chelsea and Watford. We can now add Burnley to their list.

Plus some names to watch out for with respect to MSD and ex-MSD directors and investors.

Exciting times.

UTC

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:27 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:13 pm
Hi CP, you may already be aware of this Chronicle article from 3-Jul-2020. I guess there's a good chance it is already posted on the MMT thread.

Of course, the report has a lot of comments that may be interesting with respect to ALK's use of funds from MSD.

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/f ... y-18537244







Exciting times.

UTC

Paul,

i've seen you post "exciting times" on several occasions.
not intending to be impolite, but what are you finding exciting about our current situation, because everything I read makes me think we're in trouble with this lot?

dsr
Posts: 15132
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4548 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by dsr » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:39 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pm
Hmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?

It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.

I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.

But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.

It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.

That's how it should be.

Exciting times.

UTC
But don't you think that it's easier to spend money when you have got some to spend? We went into this transfer window, or should have, with a large bank balance and no debt. Now we have no money and a lot of debt. How are we going to spend money?

The excitement so far is that Burnley FC appear to have spent of the order of £100m. You are right in a sense that "we" don't own the club, ALK do, and by that token I suppose you are right that ALK have the right to run off with the cash and bankrupt the club if that's what they want to do. It's exciting, I suppose, if you like white knuckle rides with no safety features.

Over the next few years, we owe large amounts of money in loan capital and interest. There are four places we can get the cash from. 1 - Premier League TV money, using it to repay the loan instead of using it to sign players or pay their wages. 2 - taking out a new loan to replace the old one and getting further into Dickie's Meadow. 3 - the owners, ALK, who don't have any money; they owe us £100m or so but they haven't got it and won't get it unless they sell the club at a profit, or find some other way to squeeze it out of Burnley FC. 4 - new income streams. I hope you have great faith in the new director's business acumen, because if they can find £100m to replace what has been lost from new income streams, they're doing well.

BurnleyFC
Posts: 5057
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
Been Liked: 1596 times
Has Liked: 888 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by BurnleyFC » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:54 pm

Absolutely belting that we’ve managed to sell the club to someone with seemingly less money than Mike Garlick and John B.

boyyanno
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 7:25 pm
Been Liked: 498 times
Has Liked: 114 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boyyanno » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:59 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:39 pm
But don't you think that it's easier to spend money when you have got some to spend? We went into this transfer window, or should have, with a large bank balance and no debt. Now we have no money and a lot of debt. How are we going to spend money?

The excitement so far is that Burnley FC appear to have spent of the order of £100m. You are right in a sense that "we" don't own the club, ALK do, and by that token I suppose you are right that ALK have the right to run off with the cash and bankrupt the club if that's what they want to do. It's exciting, I suppose, if you like white knuckle rides with no safety features.

Over the next few years, we owe large amounts of money in loan capital and interest. There are four places we can get the cash from. 1 - Premier League TV money, using it to repay the loan instead of using it to sign players or pay their wages. 2 - taking out a new loan to replace the old one and getting further into Dickie's Meadow. 3 - the owners, ALK, who don't have any money; they owe us £100m or so but they haven't got it and won't get it unless they sell the club at a profit, or find some other way to squeeze it out of Burnley FC. 4 - new income streams. I hope you have great faith in the new director's business acumen, because if they can find £100m to replace what has been lost from new income streams, they're doing well.
I'm sure ALK have some sort of a plan but if it was possible for the club to increase it's revenue substantially then why did Garlick not peruse this avenue instead of selling the club, that's the thing I can't understand.

scouseclaret
Posts: 2596
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm
Been Liked: 857 times
Has Liked: 264 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by scouseclaret » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:14 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pm
Hmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?

It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.

I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.

But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.

It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.

That's how it should be.

Exciting times.

UTC
Sorry Paul, but “we” have lifetimes of emotional and cultural investment in this Club which isn’t shared by a bunch of financiers who arrived a couple of weeks ago. I think “we” have the right to be concerned that the new owners have taken control of our club using very little of their own money and a whole lot of financial engineering.
These 5 users liked this post: gawthorpe_view boatshed bill winsomeyen Jacko fatboy47

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:43 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:27 pm
Paul,

i've seen you post "exciting times" on several occasions.
not intending to be impolite, but what are you finding exciting about our current situation, because everything I read makes me think we're in trouble with this lot?
Hi boatshed, thanks for asking the question. One or two others have asked the same. I don't find it "impolite."

So, I start from understanding that Mike Garlick and the other directors did not feel that they had the money (or appetite) to invest further in the club and that they'd decided they needed to sell. From what we've seen, the plan to sell started at least 3 years back - that's when we first started seeing US media taking an interest in Burnley Football Club. More recently, one or two of our posters have stated that a prospectus to promote the club for sale was first prepared in 2018.

I think there's a lot who post on here who agreed with MG's desire to sell. Of course, there are many, and I've been one of them, that have posted about the challenges for Burnley FC competing with the finances of the "big city" clubs - "small town..." etc.. etc... and not the most wealthy of areas.

So, for me, there were two possible outcomes, (1) MG sells to a new owner or (2) no new owner is found and the decline of BFC begins, maybe to follow the fates of Wigan, Bolton (remember when they were both Premier League clubs) and there's a worse fate which is Bury. (I was a young lad when Accrington Stanley folded in 1962).

Then we reach Sept last year and the first news of ALK emerges. That for me is exciting. Then we learn of the El Kashashy/Farnell competing interest - but, the Farnell connection doesn't look promising. So, a little bit of excitement, the competing interests are resolved in favour of Alan Pace and ALK.

Then we move to December, the transfer window is approaching - not forgetting in Nov the club had confirmed takeover discussion - and we all wait to learn if ALK will complete the deal. Big excitement, the deal is concluded right before the end of the year.

Of course, we were left with the question, "who are ALK?" and "where is their money?" and "how will they make this work?" For me, it's exciting to have a number of "unknowns." It's a bit like have a large number of presents, all nicely wrapped. You don't know what's in the parcels. You know that some may not be great, maybe one is just a set of hankies or a pair of socks, but others may be a Burnley shirt or season ticket or the "round the world" holiday that you've always wanted. For me, the "unknowns" are exciting, and watching and seeking to piece the clues together are all exciting.

I see nothing to fear in Alan Pace and ALK. Alan Pace has got a football background. He's been involved in a successful football team in Salt Lake City in the US. He's got connections to the UK both through his work in London and - and I was ignorant of this - through his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which also gives him strong links to Lancashire. Who'd have thought a few months back that our new owners would have a "local" connection? That's exciting. Alan Pace also understands that we like our owners to be closely involved and he's moving to live in the area. We can be excited and welcome people moving to Lancashire. (The club, also, needs good footballers to be keen to move to north east Lancs to join the club).

Then, there is some stuff which some will think a little "geeky." I like puzzling out financial structures, reading loan debenture documents, accounting statements and more. There can be "clever ways" that people do things. I'm retired now, but I spent some of my career aiming to do these things - though in very different context than football clubs. So, for me, again, it's more "exciting times" and "what's not to likes."

I've thrown in the "what's not to like" as I think that's an "Americanism." I spent a lot of my working life alongside Americans. I've always loved their "can do" attitude - even though, I recognise there are people who I've worked with who were all "can do" but really should have been "we need to stop them doing anything..." I don't see Alan Pace as in the latter category, though, hey, I haven't met him and I could be wrong.

Does that help?

I remain...

Exciting times

UTC

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:48 pm

scouseclaret wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:14 pm
Sorry Paul, but “we” have lifetimes of emotional and cultural investment in this Club which isn’t shared by a bunch of financiers who arrived a couple of weeks ago. I think “we” have the right to be concerned that the new owners have taken control of our club using very little of their own money and a whole lot of financial engineering.
Hi scouse, yes, I said "I get it" about the "emotional and cultural investments" but, that's a different relationship from owning the club. We've always had owners who are owners, while we are the club's fans. As I've posted in response to boatshed bill, it's the new owners taking on the challenge of solving the puzzle "how can we keep Burnley in the Premier League" that I find exciting.

Exciting times.

UTC

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:51 pm

I’ll be honest I thought it would have been a lot longer than 2 weeks before folk started moaning about our new owners!

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:54 pm

dsr wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:39 pm
But don't you think that it's easier to spend money when you have got some to spend? We went into this transfer window, or should have, with a large bank balance and no debt. Now we have no money and a lot of debt. How are we going to spend money?

The excitement so far is that Burnley FC appear to have spent of the order of £100m. You are right in a sense that "we" don't own the club, ALK do, and by that token I suppose you are right that ALK have the right to run off with the cash and bankrupt the club if that's what they want to do. It's exciting, I suppose, if you like white knuckle rides with no safety features.

Over the next few years, we owe large amounts of money in loan capital and interest. There are four places we can get the cash from. 1 - Premier League TV money, using it to repay the loan instead of using it to sign players or pay their wages. 2 - taking out a new loan to replace the old one and getting further into Dickie's Meadow. 3 - the owners, ALK, who don't have any money; they owe us £100m or so but they haven't got it and won't get it unless they sell the club at a profit, or find some other way to squeeze it out of Burnley FC. 4 - new income streams. I hope you have great faith in the new director's business acumen, because if they can find £100m to replace what has been lost from new income streams, they're doing well.
Hi dsr, as I've posted above, I will find it exciting to see how Alan Pace and ALK will tackle these financial challenges - along with the footballing challenge of keeping BFC successful.

We all recall that a common post on here is "speculate to accumulate." It may be that Alan Pace and ALK are going to show us all how that can be done with Burnley Football Club.

Exciting times.

UTC

Nonayforever
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
Been Liked: 690 times
Has Liked: 172 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Nonayforever » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:58 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pm
Hmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?

It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.

I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.

But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.

It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.

That's how it should be.

Exciting times.

UTC
Paul,
I have bitten my tongue long enough now with your exciting times. I think that you have now completely overstepped the mark with that post.

Football, as Burnley fans perceive it, is a local brew. It is WE. It's The Turf. It's the Longside. It's us against the big six or who ever is above us. It's the small dog with the biggest heart. It's about a special local rivalry with our near neighbours not AC Milan. A manager has to earn the right to be included in OUR Claret & Blue army chant. Certain individuals will be forever remembered as Clarets.

If you or a bunch of financial savvy Americans think the line ends where the money begins, you and they are completely wrong.
This user liked this post: winsomeyen

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Dark Cloud » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:05 pm

Nonayforever wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:58 pm
Paul,
I have bitten my tongue long enough now with your exciting times. I think that you have now completely overstepped the mark with that post.

Football, as Burnley fans perceive it, is a local brew. It is WE. It's The Turf. It's the Longside. It's us against the big six or who ever is above us. It's the small dog with the biggest heart. It's about a special local rivalry with our near neighbours not AC Milan. A manager has to earn the right to be included in OUR Claret & Blue army chant. Certain individuals will be forever remembered as Clarets.

If you or a bunch of financial savvy Americans think the line ends where the money begins, you and they are completely wrong.
Whilst I do see and appreciate the point that Paul was making, what Nonayforever says is very true and it's also true to add that if and when the owners (any owners) decide they've had enough and sail away, we will still be here because we are the "fans" and we will ALWAYS be here and making the best of it (and it COULD be a right dogs breakfast!)

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:15 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:05 pm
Whilst I do see and appreciate the point that Paul was making, what Nonayforever says is very true and it's also true to add that if and when the owners (any owners) decide they've had enough and sail away, we will still be here because we are the "fans" and we will ALWAYS be here and making the best of it (and it COULD be a right dogs breakfast!)
There is another financial tragedy unfolding at Derby at this very moment - owned by a billionaire who has used every trick in the book to dodge FFP (having written about 3/4 of it) and consistently failing to win promotion - he has had enough and seems to be refusing to put more money in - has agreed a sale to another billionaire (who is notorious for saying he wants to buy a club and then not stumping up the money) - the money for the takeover has supposedly been in transit for 3 weeks (must be coming by camel) but has yet to arrive at the lawyers - meanwhile players are going unpaid and the club is desperately trying to raise loans but have no assets to secure them against, mainly as a result of the actions of the current owner during his tenure.

Dark Cloud
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
Been Liked: 1981 times
Has Liked: 3299 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Dark Cloud » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:18 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:15 pm
There is another financial tragedy unfolding at Derby at this very moment - owned by a billionaire who has used every trick in the book to dodge FFP (having written about 3/4 of it) and consistently failing to win promotion - he has had enough and seems to be refusing to put more money in - has agreed a sale to another billionaire (who is notorious for saying he wants to buy a club and then not stumping up the money) - the money for the takeover has supposedly been in transit for 3 weeks (must be coming by camel) but has yet to arrive at the lawyers - meanwhile players are going unpaid and the club is desperately trying to raise loans but have no assets to secure them against, mainly as a result of the actions of the current owner during his tenure.
So sounds like Elkashashy and Muttley (Farnell) are back then and have moved on from Burnley to Derby!!! :lol:

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:19 pm

Dark Cloud wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:18 pm
So sounds like Elkashashy and Muttley (Farnell) are back then and have moved on from Burnley to Derby!!! :lol:
no he is a Qatari - has previously tried Liverpool and Newcastle

aggi
Posts: 8762
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am
Been Liked: 2109 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by aggi » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:29 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:43 pm
Hi boatshed, thanks for asking the question. One or two others have asked the same. I don't find it "impolite."
...
I remain...

Exciting times

UTC
I think Pace being an experienced football man is somewhat over-egged. In a long career he's spent 18 months over a dozen years ago at a nascent MLS team with a turnover of £5m, that's a world away from a premier league team.

For what it's worth I don't disagree with exciting times. Whether it is good exciting or bad exciting we shall have to see.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Devils_Advocate » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:30 pm

Interesting to look back on this little thread from two years ago where the topic was the need for investors.

What would be even more interesting would be to put the two versions of Paul Waine in a room together and watch them tell themselves how they are both wrong :D

https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... relegation

Good to see some of this threads key contributors have stayed consistent with their views though

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:47 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:43 pm
Hi boatshed, thanks for asking the question. One or two others have asked the same. I don't find it "impolite."

So, I start from understanding that Mike Garlick and the other directors did not feel that they had the money (or appetite) to invest further in the club and that they'd decided they needed to sell. From what we've seen, the plan to sell started at least 3 years back - that's when we first started seeing US media taking an interest in Burnley Football Club. More recently, one or two of our posters have stated that a prospectus to promote the club for sale was first prepared in 2018.

I think there's a lot who post on here who agreed with MG's desire to sell. Of course, there are many, and I've been one of them, that have posted about the challenges for Burnley FC competing with the finances of the "big city" clubs - "small town..." etc.. etc... and not the most wealthy of areas.

So, for me, there were two possible outcomes, (1) MG sells to a new owner or (2) no new owner is found and the decline of BFC begins, maybe to follow the fates of Wigan, Bolton (remember when they were both Premier League clubs) and there's a worse fate which is Bury. (I was a young lad when Accrington Stanley folded in 1962).

Then we reach Sept last year and the first news of ALK emerges. That for me is exciting. Then we learn of the El Kashashy/Farnell competing interest - but, the Farnell connection doesn't look promising. So, a little bit of excitement, the competing interests are resolved in favour of Alan Pace and ALK.

Then we move to December, the transfer window is approaching - not forgetting in Nov the club had confirmed takeover discussion - and we all wait to learn if ALK will complete the deal. Big excitement, the deal is concluded right before the end of the year.

Of course, we were left with the question, "who are ALK?" and "where is their money?" and "how will they make this work?" For me, it's exciting to have a number of "unknowns." It's a bit like have a large number of presents, all nicely wrapped. You don't know what's in the parcels. You know that some may not be great, maybe one is just a set of hankies or a pair of socks, but others may be a Burnley shirt or season ticket or the "round the world" holiday that you've always wanted. For me, the "unknowns" are exciting, and watching and seeking to piece the clues together are all exciting.

I see nothing to fear in Alan Pace and ALK. Alan Pace has got a football background. He's been involved in a successful football team in Salt Lake City in the US. He's got connections to the UK both through his work in London and - and I was ignorant of this - through his Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which also gives him strong links to Lancashire. Who'd have thought a few months back that our new owners would have a "local" connection? That's exciting. Alan Pace also understands that we like our owners to be closely involved and he's moving to live in the area. We can be excited and welcome people moving to Lancashire. (The club, also, needs good footballers to be keen to move to north east Lancs to join the club).

Then, there is some stuff which some will think a little "geeky." I like puzzling out financial structures, reading loan debenture documents, accounting statements and more. There can be "clever ways" that people do things. I'm retired now, but I spent some of my career aiming to do these things - though in very different context than football clubs. So, for me, again, it's more "exciting times" and "what's not to likes."

I've thrown in the "what's not to like" as I think that's an "Americanism." I spent a lot of my working life alongside Americans. I've always loved their "can do" attitude - even though, I recognise there are people who I've worked with who were all "can do" but really should have been "we need to stop them doing anything..." I don't see Alan Pace as in the latter category, though, hey, I haven't met him and I could be wrong.

Does that help?

I remain...

Exciting times

UTC

Thanks, Paul
I wish I could share your optimism.
where has our club's profit gone? That's a worry to me, the fact that some company our individual could buy the club with our capital, money that could have been used to strengthen the squad and has now vanished.
This user liked this post: Jacko

fatboy47
Posts: 4178
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 am
Been Liked: 2307 times
Has Liked: 2691 times
Location: Isles of Scilly

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by fatboy47 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:58 pm

The dominant rationale in the discussion about the merits/demerits of a takeover centred on Garlick's unwillingness to invest in the team.

We wont have to wait long to see to what extent that situation changes...failure to strengthen in the next few weeks will increase the chance of losing Dyche sooner rather than later, and with that the increased chance of relegation and entering the championship as another small debt-laden club.
Fingers crossed...the players are out there....lets see what happens.
This user liked this post: winsomeyen

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:02 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:47 pm
Thanks, Paul
I wish I could share your optimism.
where has our club's profit gone? That's a worry to me, the fact that some company our individual could buy the club with our capital, money that could have been used to strengthen the squad and has now vanished.
History suggests that the previous board were not going to use those funds for squad building either, as to what they were going to do with the money that remains unknown but is subject to a wide range of theories - and they are only theories not truth whatever people want to believe.

Jacko
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:18 pm
Been Liked: 30 times
Has Liked: 18 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Jacko » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:12 pm

Paul Waine wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 3:42 pm
Hmm, we do all know that ALK owns Burnley Football Club and that it's ALK who have taken out a loan and ALK who are using the club's cash?

It would be shocking if anyone else was to borrow money based on security of Burnley football club's assets and to "empty BFC's bank account" but, this isn't what's happened. It's the club's owners who are managing the club's own affairs.

I get it that fans associate with the club they support. I get it that we say "we won" and similar. I get it when fans say "we should pay the asking price" or "we need to speculate to accumulate" or complain when the club's owner decided to "keep their power dry...." I also get it that when times were particularly hard a number of fans put their hands in their own pockets and bought shares in the club. That's great.

But, unless it's your own money and unless you are the one funding the club with your own money then "we" shouldn't be taken too far. We should understand where you and I starts and ends and where "we" is crossing the line into something that it isn't.

It's great that we are all interested in the changes at the club. It's great that we share Alan Pace's stated ambitions for the club under ALK's ownership. However, I recommend everyone retains a sense of proportion. Burnley FC is in the Premier League. We all know BFC needs to spend money to remain in the Premier League. We all know that spending money doesn't make it a given that the club will remain in the Premier League.

That's how it should be.

Exciting times.

UTC
This is a point of view and I actually think it's helpful in understanding where you're coming from - illuminating even. However, it's not a point of view that I share. Football clubs are not simply assets. They are not cars, teapots, widgets, they are not even equivalent to standard businesses whether that be corner shops or multinationals. They are community institutions, social entities, organisations with hopes, dreams and community fabric writ through them. I do not believe they should be treated as investment opportunities alone, nor that the only stakeholders with any power over them should be those who happen to pay the bills and own the shares.

A football club is something different. Forgive me if I simplify it, but your view seems to be that those who pay the bills should be able to do whatever they want with it. I do not agree. Owners should be thought of merely as custodians, with a responsibility beyond the balance sheet. Given that, fans have every right to be worried, ask questions, protest, etc. It is for this reason that I also believe governments shouldn't just interest themselves in what happens with football clubs but should take a much firmer legislative role in ownership and the running of the game.

KRBFC
Posts: 18017
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:18 am
Been Liked: 3784 times
Has Liked: 1071 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KRBFC » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:27 pm

boatshed bill wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:47 pm
Thanks, Paul
I wish I could share your optimism.
where has our club's profit gone? That's a worry to me, the fact that some company our individual could buy the club with our capital, money that could have been used to strengthen the squad and has now vanished.
Where did ALK confirm this? Where’s the proof this is factual? Or are we continuing to argue toss with incorrect information?

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:45 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:27 pm
Where did ALK confirm this? Where’s the proof this is factual? Or are we continuing to argue toss with incorrect information?
I’d like to know where the journalist from The Athletic got his information from about the alleged borrowing of club funds to complete the takeover. A now former disgruntled director perhaps?

Also a few talking about the profit we had. Well that was likely to stay in the bank judging by the last few transfer windows had Garlick remained in charge.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Jan 13, 2021 9:49 pm

One simple question I keep asking:
Did we have a healthy bank balance of around £55m last month?
Do we have a healthy bank balance today?

OK, that's 2 questions

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by joey13 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:05 pm

KRBFC wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:27 pm
Where did ALK confirm this? Where’s the proof this is factual? Or are we continuing to argue toss with incorrect information?
How do you know it’s incorrect information?

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:08 pm

joey13 wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:05 pm
How do you know it’s incorrect information?
The point he is making is that we don't know - and he is right - it should also be stressed that at no point has Matt Slater said all Burnley's cash-holding has been used to buy shares

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:21 pm

joey13 wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:05 pm
How do you know it’s incorrect information?
How do we know it’s correct information?

Father Jack
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
Been Liked: 148 times
Has Liked: 23 times
Location: Leyland

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Father Jack » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:22 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:08 pm
The point he is making is that we don't know - and he is right - it should also be stressed that at no point has Matt Slater said all Burnley's cash-holding has been used to buy shares
Matt Slater hasn’t. But his trusted ‘sources’ have?

Murger
Posts: 4206
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:55 pm
Been Liked: 1235 times
Has Liked: 844 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Murger » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:22 pm

Didn't I read somewhere that 1 of his sources was Farnell?

WalkdenClaret
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:01 pm
Been Liked: 23 times
Has Liked: 21 times
Location: Walkden

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by WalkdenClaret » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:27 pm

I too would love to share in Paul Waine's optimism, but the financial explanations given consistently never really add up to anything (apologies I don't wish to be rude but i'm not clever enough to have understand a word of your Aesop's fable and I'd had too much wine !).

I would love to be completely wrong and find out the the Bloomberg and The Athletic articles are hogwash, but like everyone on here, all we want is the best for our club. you, and Pace offering soothing words and empty is nowhere near placating any of us on UTC.

if the speculative articles, and the stories surrounding MSD/P's loans are true, it does appear to me that we had cash in the bank one day, then next it was gone (your comments about how bad and wasteful cash in bank earning 0 interest is vs how brilliant having a costly loan is nonsensensical).

Please give me some facts, numbers, to disprove this and show me that PACE/ALK are using own cash/loans and not lumping anything on BFC.
to repeat, on 30/12/20 we had £42m (or thereabouts) in bank and daily cashflow to service wages, i.e. we could have busted s flush and bought a goal machine, whilst affording wages for a while.
on 31/12, the cash disappeared. Plus a new debt emerged.

Can you say if this statement is true or false:
on 30/12 we had a large cash balance and no debt, on 31/12 the balance is 0 or thereabouts and we have a loan.

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by joey13 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:28 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:21 pm
How do we know it’s correct information?
The club has been sold :roll:

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:31 pm

joey13 wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:28 pm
The club has been sold :roll:
That wasn’t your point though was it. You are believing a report on how the takeover was funded which has already been denied by our new chairman.

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:31 pm

Jacko wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 8:12 pm
This is a point of view and I actually think it's helpful in understanding where you're coming from - illuminating even. However, it's not a point of view that I share. Football clubs are not simply assets. They are not cars, teapots, widgets, they are not even equivalent to standard businesses whether that be corner shops or multinationals. They are community institutions, social entities, organisations with hopes, dreams and community fabric writ through them. I do not believe they should be treated as investment opportunities alone, nor that the only stakeholders with any power over them should be those who happen to pay the bills and own the shares.

A football club is something different. Forgive me if I simplify it, but your view seems to be that those who pay the bills should be able to do whatever they want with it. I do not agree. Owners should be thought of merely as custodians, with a responsibility beyond the balance sheet. Given that, fans have every right to be worried, ask questions, protest, etc. It is for this reason that I also believe governments shouldn't just interest themselves in what happens with football clubs but should take a much firmer legislative role in ownership and the running of the game.
Hi Jacko, I hope you don't mind if I quote you, but also intend my response to nonay and others who have expressed why the club is "we" to the fans. I'm also a fan and the club is also "we" for me for the same reasons you are all describing.

However, I see a division. We all support a football club. Our club is Burnley, we are all tied to our club by our history. I started in 1967 standing on the terraces of the (old) cricket field end. In 1968 I got my hands on the FA Youth Cup, a proud night for a young teenager. I watched the "team of the 70s" destroy Leeds United 5-1. In 1974 I was at Hillsborough and so on. Moving forward in time, in 2008 I was at Stamford Bridge with my teenage son. Then there was Wembley and in August on the Turf and we beat Man Utd.

This is our 5th season in the Premier League since winning the Championship in 2015-16. Through this latest period we have seen the financial side of football become tougher and tougher. Yes, tv money has been great and has grown, but the costs of football has grown more. It has become a competition between "mega billionaires" - with the Premier League footballers and their agents taking more and more out of the game for themselves. (Whether we consider Mike Garlick's view or Sean Dyche's alternative perspective the club is between a rock and a hard place without the money to maintain the team).

We all want Burnley to stay in this "money fight" even though, as fans, we know we can never win on this basis. There are no Burnley fans who can put up the money to even hope to "stay in the game." If we want Premier League football we have got to be prepared to try another way. For me, there is the possibility that Alan Pace and ALK are that other way. Let's not get hung up on how ALK have found the money to buy out Mike Garlick, John B and all the other directors. Let's celebrate that they have found a way and have done it. We've now got someone else at the helm, someone who is saying all the right things and is doing all the right things in this first two weeks of ownership that suggests they might know how BFC can compete. Yes, of course, they are investors. Yes, of course, they are looking for a return. Maybe the chances of them being successful are no better than 1 in 10.

Or, maybe their chances are much better than that. MSD wouldn't lend money to a club that looked set to fail. They will know what ALK's plans are and what financial resources they have to deliver those plans. From reports, we believe that MG and JB are owed 3 instalments before they are paid in full for their shares. If the money isn't paid, they get the club back. Do you think they'd agree to those arrangements if there was a high probability of them not receiving the 3 instalments? Again, they will have knowledge of ALK's and the club's plans - they need to know this because they remain directors of the club and remain responsible for all the decisions the club makes, including responsibilities to ensure that the club pays its debts when they fall due. (Some may also remind us of the ODT. It would be a very strange test if it could be passed by someone who "has no money" and planned only to take out a loan and pay the rest from the club's own bank account).

Put all those "risk mitigations" aside. I've mentioned before about Accrington Stanley folding in 1962. About the time I started going regularly on t'Turf, Accrington Stanley reformed - with 1968 in the "new" club's name. It's been a great journey. The Stanley are now the highest in the footballing pyramid that they have ever been, including all previous versions of that club. We are all familiar with the story of Wimbledon and we know of the new AFC Wimbledon that (most of) the fans formed when their old club was "stolen" away from them and moved to Milton Keynes. I live near Kingston. For several years I've played 5-a-side at Kingsmeadow. It was AFC Wimbledon's ground until they moved "back to" the New Plough Lane a few weeks back. The Wimbledon fans did a lot of fund raising for Plough Lane - though they couldn't do it without some "money men" also backing the deal (and, I think there are still some gaps before all their plans can be realised).

Accrington Stanley and AFC Wimbledon fans have the same "we" connection with their club, as we do with the Claret and Blue of Burnley. That for me is the "we." That is the "emotional and community" connection that makes our relationship with Burnley so special. We will all know how good it is for the town of Burnley for the team to be successful and in the Premier League. (That alone, for me, is a good enough reason to back Alan Pace and ALK).

Yes, to spend time in the Premier League we need someone with money. I feel that Alan Pace and ALK give us the opportunity to extend our time in the Premier League. I will "dare to dream" that we can continue for many, many years. Who knows, maybe we will win a cup. Maybe we will have further adventures in Europe. Maybe Alan Pace will make us the world's favourite "underdog" in the Premier League.

That's the excitement for me. And, if it doesn't turn out that way, if results don't go for us through the end of this season (and I see that Fulham have got a point tonight), then we know that we can rebuild and come again.

Exciting times.

UTC
This user liked this post: mill hill claret

Chester Perry
Posts: 19167
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:06 am
Been Liked: 3114 times
Has Liked: 481 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Chester Perry » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pm

Father Jack wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:22 pm
Matt Slater hasn’t. But his trusted ‘sources’ have?
The article is awkward in this specific area - it says it has used £55m of Burnley's own cash reserves yet that doesn't add up (even using the lower parameters of the figures offer by the media for borrowings and up front stake) £102m initial payment less £10m upfront and approx £60m from MSD suggests no more than £35m from club cash and substantially less if the other figures are low - the article should have probably said accessed the clubs £55m of cash.
This user liked this post: KateR

joey13
Posts: 7501
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1767 times
Has Liked: 1230 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by joey13 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:31 pm
That wasn’t your point though was it. You are believing a report on how the takeover was funded which has already been denied by our new chairman.
Denied with nothing to back it up

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:35 pm

joey13 wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pm
Denied with nothing to back it up
The same as the article?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:39 pm

aggi wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:29 pm
I think Pace being an experienced football man is somewhat over-egged. In a long career he's spent 18 months over a dozen years ago at a nascent MLS team with a turnover of £5m, that's a world away from a premier league team.

For what it's worth I don't disagree with exciting times. Whether it is good exciting or bad exciting we shall have to see.
Hi aggi, OK, I meant "experienced football man" relative to all the other new club owners around the Premier League and the Championship. How may of the others have run a football (or soccer) club before?

Exciting times are always good times when watching football - even if the result doesn't turn out how we'd like it. ;)

Exciting times.

UTC

KateR
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 1:46 pm
Been Liked: 1018 times
Has Liked: 6156 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by KateR » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:44 pm

would be a lot easier for most, if not everyone, if you could list and agree the facts, then after that, you can try to fill in the blanks with guesses and speculation, good, bad, indifferent. Perhaps even develop a SWOT analysis around it, then produce a risk matrix so you could track the next few years in terms of how close and what "facts" become apparent that skew whiffed the whole thing. :?

Yet thinking about it, I think I'll go with the wait and see approach, will there be a board melt down at the end of Jan or a huge cheer for the new owners?

exciting times indeed :lol: :P
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

Father Jack
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:52 pm
Been Liked: 148 times
Has Liked: 23 times
Location: Leyland

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Father Jack » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:52 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pm
The article is awkward in this specific area - it says it has used £55m of Burnley's own cash reserves yet that doesn't add up (even using the lower parameters of the figures offer by the media for borrowings and up front stake) £102m initial payment less £10m upfront and approx £60m from MSD suggests no more than £35m from club cash and substantially less if the other figures are low - the article should have probably said accessed the clubs £55m of cash.
Thanks for sharing. And if you use the higher parameters or any combination of high/low there’s still not a scenario in which £55m may have been used?

Paul Waine
Posts: 9845
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 2344 times
Has Liked: 3164 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Paul Waine » Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:52 pm

Chester Perry wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 10:33 pm
The article is awkward in this specific area - it says it has used £55m of Burnley's own cash reserves yet that doesn't add up (even using the lower parameters of the figures offer by the media for borrowings and up front stake) £102m initial payment less £10m upfront and approx £60m from MSD suggests no more than £35m from club cash and substantially less if the other figures are low - the article should have probably said accessed the clubs £55m of cash.
Hi CP, you and I, I believe, have both taken a look at Southampton's latest financial report. You are also knowledgeable about the timing of distribution of tv money to the clubs. Are there any clues in the Soton figures that can help us prepare decent estimates for BFC, not just of the club's p&l for the 13 months to 31-July-2020, but also the cash balances at the end of December. If the largest part of the Premier League tv money is paid to the clubs at the start of the season (?) and further payments are rec'd sometime in 2021 (are there one or two more payments due? when are the final position payments paid? etc)? What do we estimate are the monthly cash wages to the players and other staff - remembering that PAYE and NIC are deducted and paid to HMRC later (do we know if this is monthly or quarterly? or is a deferral scheme running, as it is with VAT)?

What I'm getting at. is there may have been a large amount of cash in the club's bank account. But, a large amount of the cash could have been spoken for over the next several months....

Soton made big losses in 2019-20. Some of that is down to covid-19 and the suspension of football. Are there estimates of BFC's position at 31-Jul-2020? How much of Mike Garlick's "we could lose £50m" looks like a reasonable estimate - taking into account what we can learn from Soton?

Exciting times.

UTC

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5201 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: ALK Capital or Farnell/Elkashashy takeover

Post by Devils_Advocate » Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:03 pm

Whats changed Paul?

A couple of years ago you seemed to think an investor without a connection to the club or to the area would be mad to invest even to the point they would be better off investing in a Championship club.

You seemed to recognise the challenge of succeeding with a club like Burnley and saw the dangers and of relegations and the warnings of what went wrong with other clubs and that this was a more realistic outcome than success.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic but you seem to have a completely different perspective on the merits of an investor taking on Burnley football club.

As we've no solid information around how the deal is structured and what the business plan is what has made you take such a seismic change in your viewpoint on this issue?

Post Reply